Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-02-01

Wnen the latter pulled his pistol and hred
Robinson said he did not strike McWhorter;
said he never made any threats, direct or
indirect, against him, but put the paper in
his pocket and asked McWhorter, the first
time he saw him, if he was the author.
City Attorney Hart and Police Judge
Buckley (who was District Attorney at the
time of the homicide) testified relative to
the anti-mortem statement made to them
by Robinson, after he had been informed of
the dangerous nature of his injury They
were allowed to refresh their memories by
reading the statement, which was as fol-
lows:
feel perfectly clear in my head and know
what am saying. fully realize my condition,
met McWhorter at the nerof the State House
did rot know whether it was McWhorter or
not at first. He was talking to Mr.. O'Brien. /
asked Senator Chandler who that was, pointing
to McWhorter and he said it was McWhorter /
stepped up TO McWhorter and told him desired
to see him, at the same time taking paper out
of my pocket and showing it TO him. He put
his hand on his revolver. l told him there was
no use in pulling his revolver, and asked him
If he fathercd the article in the paper. Preached
for him and We clinched. Then ne put the re-
yolver to my body and fired. made no motion
TO get my revolver until after he shot me. l
could have shot him after he shot me- but a by
stander asked me not to shoot him, and did
not An officer then came up and handed him
was the Marysville Democrat, which contained a
villainous article about me- The article was a
lie. When l reached for him, McWhorter had
his hand ON his back pocket. / knew he would
pull his revolver.
Two or three lines were stricken out of
the original ante-mortem statement as in
admissible, being that portion declaring
the article in the Democrat yillainous and
lie.1
David Osborn was called as witness to
the ante-mortem statement, and said that
Robinson said to him that he robin
SOM was down town and met McWhorter,
who had published some bad articles about
him, and asked for an explanation, and
that McWhorter got mad and shot him.
He was asked if he was trying to hurt
McWhorter, and he replied that he was
not at all. Witness also said that Robinson
told him frequently after he was shot, that
he could not live and was mustered out"
Isaac Stearns, business manager of the
Marysville Democrat (of which defendant
is editor and proprietor) was the last wit
ness of the day. He testified that Mr.. Nc
Whorter came to him one morning last
summer, and asked him for a pistol;
Stearns told him he hadn't any, but that
he would get him one, and that he subse-
quently went 10 the gunsmith shop of p.
George, in Marysville, and bought one on
trial; he said he told the guDsmith it was
for Mr.. McWhorter, and that if the pistol
suited he would keep ii, and if not, return
it; witness said that after buying the pistol
he returned to the Democrat office, and laid
it on Mr.. McWhorter's desk in the editorial
room he then went out and left it lying
ON the table; that was the last he saw of
the weapon. During this testimony Cali
fornia bulldog revolver was shown witness,
nd ha ( ba rio4r ha
purchased. He replied that the pistol he
bought looked something like the one
shown to him, but that he could not state
more definitely.
Counsel for prosecution asked several
questions with a view to draw from wit
ness the statement that he instructed Nc
Whorter in the method of using the pistol
and that he knew the intended use to be to
shoot Robinson, but witness persistently
answered that he did not show him how to
use the weapon, nor did he know what
McWhorter wished the pistol for. When
the information was received concerning
the shooting, witness said, he was in Mar
cuse's store. At this point, counsel for the
prosecution asked him if he did not expect
information that Robinson had been
killed He replied that he expected when
McWhorter left in the morning that there
would or might be trouble, and he was not
astonished when he heard the news, but
had no knowledge that there was to be
any trouble with Robinson
Counsel asked several questions in differ
ent forms to Illicit from witness that he
had stated, when the news of the shooting
first reached him, that he was expecting to
hear that Robinson had been shot, but wit
ness said he never made such statement.
Mr.. Hart asked him pointedly if he did not
make such statement as indicated to Dis
trict Attorney Forbes, George Morris and
Mr.. Marcuse. Witness said he did not.
Witness was then shown clippings from the
Marysyille Democrat, which he identified as
articles which had been published in that
paper, and stated that Mr., McWhorter was
the editor and publisher. The articles
strongly reflected upon Robinsons charac-
ter as an officer and citizen, and the Ir re-
cution offered them in evidence to show
that defendant had traduced and greatly
aggravated Robinson, with the direct pur-
pose of bringing on a conflict.
Grove L. johnson, of counsel for defense
objected to their admission as evidence, on
the ground that no words spoken or writ
ten, however strong or bitter, could justify
a personal assault and also upon the
ground that to admit them would be rails
ing new issue upon which the defendant
should be permitted to substantiate what
he had published if he could do SO. This
would virtually be turning aside to try de-
PENDANT for libel, and such a course could
not be thought of in practice.
The Court here excused the jury for the
day, as the point in controversy pertained
to law and not to evidence. Mr.. Johnson
argued the question at length, continuing
until about 5 P. NJ, when the Court ad-
iOurned until 10 this morning. l. is I'M
derstood that the argument will be
continued at the opening this morning
by Mr.. Hearst, of defendants counsel.